Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5714699" data-attributes="member: 42582">At least as far as combat encounters are concerned, D&amp;D has never really had a &quot;quick 1-3 roll&quot; method of resolving an encounter. I think it would be nice to have such a thing (skill challenges can be adapted to this at a pinch, but it's a bit haphazard and hand-wavey).On the issue of &quot;big challenges&quot; and &quot;epic wagers&quot; - not every encounter needs to be epic in scope (although in my own experience it does no harm if many are), but I prefer every encounter to be significant in its implications - that it matter to the situation with which the players (via their PCs) are engaged.I like this advice, from the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (p 266):It's easy to think that you should Say Yes to low-obstacle tests. This is not the case! You should Say Yes when there's nothing at stake, no conflict. You should call for [low DC checks] in situations of risk, even if it's small. These tests often produce beautiful, unexpected results.Because in D&amp;D failure is sometimes mechanically impossible, the mechanical dynamics of low-DC checks are different from Burning Wheel. But where there is some genuine conflict with which the players are engaged, they can still make an interesting contribution. This example of a social skill challenge illustrates the point:That sort of thing is not filler, but it's more than just &quot;trouble on the road&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5714699, member: 42582"] At least as far as combat encounters are concerned, D&D has never really had a "quick 1-3 roll" method of resolving an encounter. I think it would be nice to have such a thing (skill challenges can be adapted to this at a pinch, but it's a bit haphazard and hand-wavey). On the issue of "big challenges" and "epic wagers" - not every encounter needs to be epic in scope (although in my own experience it does no harm if many are), but I prefer every encounter to be significant in its implications - that it matter to the situation with which the players (via their PCs) are engaged. I like this advice, from the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (p 266): [indent]It's easy to think that you should Say Yes to low-obstacle tests. This is not the case! You should Say Yes when there's nothing at stake, no conflict. You should call for [low DC checks] in situations of risk, even if it's small. These tests often produce beautiful, unexpected results.[/indent] Because in D&D failure is sometimes mechanically impossible, the mechanical dynamics of low-DC checks are different from Burning Wheel. But where there is some genuine conflict with which the players are engaged, they can still make an interesting contribution. This example of a social skill challenge illustrates the point: That sort of thing is not filler, but it's more than just "trouble on the road". [/QUOTE]

Verification